Where does the constitution give federal judges the power to repeal laws?

[ShootSpeeders]

If the Judicial Branch invokes judicial review to nullify a law, it has NOT "repealed" that law. It has nullified the law exactly as though it had never been passed in the first place.

The effect of such nullification IS, however, pretty fairly akin to the effect of a repeal.

Hey einstein. Tell us how nullifying a law differs from repealing it!!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

SS, the fact is that the law's effect is nullified.

The fact is that the opinion brigade on this issue does not matter.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

WelfareQueen

No, that is false. When the Constitution was ratified the existence of judicial review in the Constitution was accepted by both those who opposed it and those who supported it. The debate was not over whether judicial review was granted by the Constitution--the debate was over whether a Constitution with such a power should be passed. The anti-federalists said no, but they lost. The Constitution passed, judicial review and all.

If it is not in writing it is not an enumerated power.

It is in writing. Judicial power was defined at the framing to include judicial review. Both proponents and opponents of judicial review acknowledged that it existed in the Constitution.

Then why isn't it in writing in the Constitution? The issue was debated...there was no consensus.

If it is not in the Constitution it does not exist. The fact the idea was debated is irrelevant.

Find one constitutional scholar in America who agrees with the above quote in red

Strict constructionists and Texualists along with all others consider relevant what is commonly referred to as 'the records' of the Constitutional Convention

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If the Judicial Branch invokes judicial review to nullify a law, it has NOT "repealed" that law. It has nullified the law exactly as though it had never been passed in the first place.

The effect of such nullification IS, however, pretty fairly akin to the effect of a repeal.

Hey einstein. Tell us how nullifying a law differs from repealing it!!!!

JakeStarkey ShootSpeeders IlarMeilyr

Does the repeal of a law automatically rescind prior convictions under that law?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If the Judicial Branch invokes judicial review to nullify a law, it has NOT "repealed" that law. It has nullified the law exactly as though it had never been passed in the first place.

The effect of such nullification IS, however, pretty fairly akin to the effect of a repeal.

Hey einstein. Tell us how nullifying a law differs from repealing it!!!!

JakeStarkey ShootSpeeders IlarMeilyr

Does the repeal of a law automatically rescind prior convictions under that law?

That would seem to make sense, but alas, no.

If a law made an act criminal at the prior time, a later repeal of that law does not necessarily apply retroactively.

I am assuming the question refers to a legislative determination to repeal the law. The answer is a bit more complicated if a court rules the law unconstitutional. For in that case the law is deemed a "nullity" from its inception, and the result might (depending on circumstances) void prior convictions. There is a whole body of law about when such a ruling applies retroactively as opposed to when it does not.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If the Judicial Branch invokes judicial review to nullify a law, it has NOT "repealed" that law. It has nullified the law exactly as though it had never been passed in the first place.

The effect of such nullification IS, however, pretty fairly akin to the effect of a repeal.

Hey einstein. Tell us how nullifying a law differs from repealing it!!!!

A repeal is a legislative determination, ya dipshit.

A court determination of unconstitutionality applies "ab initio" and may serve to nullify the law as though it had never been written.

Knowing that fact doesn't make anybody an Einstein. Your ignorance of that fact also doesn't make you a dumb ass. You just HAPPEN to be a dumb ass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

Article 3 Section 1&2:

"Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;

Article III | LII / Legal Information Institute

Look up the difference between "legislative power" and "judicial power".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Where does the constitution give federal judges the power to repeal laws?"

It's almost a year later and the answer is the same: it doesn't, as the question is ignorant idiocy.

The Constitution does authorize the courts, however, to invalidate laws that are offensive to the Founding Document, in accordance with the doctrine of judicial review, and the interpretive authority of the courts as authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

The Constitution and its case law are the supreme law of the land, state and local governments are subject to Federal laws and may not seek to 'ignore' or 'nullify' Federal statutes, and the Federal government, state governments, and local governments are all subject to the rulings of Federal courts (see Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

If a Federal court strikes down a state measure because it is un-Constitutional, the fault lies with the state, not the court, as it's incumbent upon the officers and elected official of each state to know the Constitution and its case law and to follow the rule of law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If the Judicial Branch invokes judicial review to nullify a law, it has NOT "repealed" that law. It has nullified the law exactly as though it had never been passed in the first place.

The effect of such nullification IS, however, pretty fairly akin to the effect of a repeal.

Hey einstein. Tell us how nullifying a law differs from repealing it!!!!

JakeStarkey ShootSpeeders IlarMeilyr

Does the repeal of a law automatically rescind prior convictions under that law?

That would seem to make sense, but alas, no.

If a law made an act criminal at the prior time, a later repeal of that law does not necessarily apply retroactively.

I am assuming the question refers to a legislative determination to repeal the law. The answer is a bit more complicated if a court rules the law unconstitutional. For in that case the law is deemed a "nullity" from its inception, and the result might (depending on circumstances) void prior convictions. There is a whole body of law about when such a ruling applies retroactively as opposed to when it does not.

Ahh, a difference between nullifying a law and repealing a law?

Who was it here who said there was no difference?

 

[emilynghiem]

If the Judicial Branch invokes judicial review to nullify a law, it has NOT "repealed" that law. It has nullified the law exactly as though it had never been passed in the first place.

The effect of such nullification IS, however, pretty fairly akin to the effect of a repeal.

Hey einstein. Tell us how nullifying a law differs from repealing it!!!!

JakeStarkey ShootSpeeders IlarMeilyr

Does the repeal of a law automatically rescind prior convictions under that law?

That would seem to make sense, but alas, no.

If a law made an act criminal at the prior time, a later repeal of that law does not necessarily apply retroactively.

I am assuming the question refers to a legislative determination to repeal the law. The answer is a bit more complicated if a court rules the law unconstitutional. For in that case the law is deemed a "nullity" from its inception, and the result might (depending on circumstances) void prior convictions. There is a whole body of law about when such a ruling applies retroactively as opposed to when it does not.

Ahh, a difference between nullifying a law and repealing a law?

Who was it here who said there was no difference?

I think people are switching contexts between the "spirit of the law"
and the "letter of the law" and legalities.

Clearly a formal repeal takes specified steps through the legislature.

I think people in essence were focused on the concept of courts having the power to 'strike down' a law,
but then using mixed or sloppy language, nullify vs. repeal which are technically different as noted by many others on. It didn't matter to them, if their point was the courts striking it down.

If they want to stay vague and avoid confusion over legalities, just use the term "strike down" or "upheld" when talking about judges/courts.

Frankly, in Texas I am ready to invoke Section 2 of the Texas Bill of Rights that recognizes the authority of the people directly to abolish or reform government within the bounds of preserving the republic:

"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient." -- Article I, Section 2, Bill of Rights, Texas Constitution

I am about to recommend to business and church leaders in all Districts in Houston to organize a coalition to revise the Houston city charter to build in a path to incorporating the Districts as independent cities and reorganizing Houston as a County. The policies passed by the City have three times violated Constitutional principles, so either the City needs to change management policies to respect the Constitution, or the District whose members believe the Constitution should extend to City govt automatically, and not require lawsuits to enforce or comply, should have the right to secede or incorporate as separate cities with govt directly under the Constitution. We don't have equal legal resources to defend our Constitutional rights from infringement by City officials abusing our tax dollars to pay more for the City Legal Dept to work against the will and interests of the public they are supposed to represent.

So we are not equally protected or represented under the law, the way the system is set up, and do not have equal right to petition to redress grievances. Only when the citizens with church or political support to sue the City have a chance to RESTORE their "inalienable rights" which is contradictory anyway: having to sue to restore them means they weren't inalienable, and the City is not respecting this.

I don't think the responsibility should only belong to legislatures and courts, but to all citizens to make sure they are under the laws they believe in, or else reform the system, or else move or set up under a different city or state code.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

good luck with that Emily. try seeing if there is any support for that 'out there'

 

[emilynghiem]

good luck with that Emily. try seeing if there is any support for that 'out there'

Well, after this last incident with the Mayor pushing weird things as part of that "Equal Rights" ordinance,
something has to change.

There was a local businessman who offered to run for Mayor, so even having a Constitutionalist
in office may fix the problem.

For me, three strikes should mean you are OUT.

In addition to the ongoing Constitutional arguments about Freedmen's Town and abuses of funds and authority, and lack of equal protection of the law, there are other more widely publicized incidents I could cite:

1. The red light camera fiasco, where even after the citizens had to finance their own lawsuit to stop this ordinance,
the City still owed the contracting company 4.8 million that taxpayers had to pay, on top of the taxpayers paying
for both the legal expenses on both sides of the lawsuit, which makes no sense if you think about it!

2. The homeless ordinance seeking to ban and fine individuals and charities from giving out food or donations to the homeless downtown, when it's part of their free exercise of religion.

3. The unilateral extension of City employee benefits to same sex couples without going through proper legislative channels.
Since such marriages are not yet recognized in Texas, that needs to change.
If the Mayor is invoking Section Two above, to change the law as expedient,
then all citizens should be able to invoke the same and start organizing similarly to reform and change laws
in the most expedient fashion, including seceding and setting up separate jurisdictions that will respect people equally.

4. The "equal rights" ordinance that went too far, and gave "special rights" to transgender citizens permitted to use the showers and bathrooms at public facilities according to their chosen gender, where "asking them questions pertaining to their gender" could constitute harassment under penalty of fines up to 5,000.00

No other citizens have the right "not to be questioned" in the restroom or showers, and this opens the door to criminal offenders if people are not allowed to question people in the restroom, especially if cross-dressed people are allowed.

Instead of spending millions on both sides of these lawsuits, I would suggest using that money, or donated resources, or even restitution for past rapes and sexual abuses/harassment, to pay for special Unisex restrooms to be installed at each public site. That way, the transgender people have priority to use that, but also anyone else, and avoid the other restrooms that are for people who don't want to hassle with not knowing if it is legal or not to question someone suspicious in there.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[No, that is false. When the Constitution was ratified the existence of judicial review in the Constitution was accepted by both those who opposed it and those who supported it.

uraliar. The idea of judgings repealing laws and writing new ones was invented in marbury v madison. Before that, the idea had never even occurred to anyong. If anyone did think it, they dismissed it immediately. Repealing laws and writing laws is what legislators do.

think, you hatefilled miserable wretch.

The idea that courts could nullify statutes originated in England with Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion in Dr. Bonham’s Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a. Call me a liar all you want, but you merely reveal your own ignorance.

Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. I already provided a detailed explanation of why, and your failure to comprehend it is on you.

How many people in here even know what Marbury v Madison was about, or how it was decided? I'll wait while everyone rushes to their Google.

 

[Conservative65]

[No, that is false. When the Constitution was ratified the existence of judicial review in the Constitution was accepted by both those who opposed it and those who supported it.

uraliar. The idea of judgings repealing laws and writing new ones was invented in marbury v madison. Before that, the idea had never even occurred to anyong. If anyone did think it, they dismissed it immediately. Repealing laws and writing laws is what legislators do.

think, you hatefilled miserable wretch.

The idea that courts could nullify statutes originated in England with Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion in Dr. Bonham’s Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a. Call me a liar all you want, but you merely reveal your own ignorance.

Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. I already provided a detailed explanation of why, and your failure to comprehend it is on you.

Marbury is where the Supreme Court gaves itself authority to do something that isn't in the Constitution. Your failure to comprehend that is on you.

How many people in here even know what Marbury v Madison was about, or how it was decided? I'll wait while everyone rushes to their Google.

It was the case where the Supreme Court gave itself the authority to determine whether or not a law was constitutional.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[No, that is false. When the Constitution was ratified the existence of judicial review in the Constitution was accepted by both those who opposed it and those who supported it.

uraliar. The idea of judgings repealing laws and writing new ones was invented in marbury v madison. Before that, the idea had never even occurred to anyong. If anyone did think it, they dismissed it immediately. Repealing laws and writing laws is what legislators do.

think, you hatefilled miserable wretch.

The idea that courts could nullify statutes originated in England with Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion in Dr. Bonham’s Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a. Call me a liar all you want, but you merely reveal your own ignorance.

Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. I already provided a detailed explanation of why, and your failure to comprehend it is on you.

Marbury is where the Supreme Court gaves itself authority to do something that isn't in the Constitution. Your failure to comprehend that is on you.

How many people in here even know what Marbury v Madison was about, or how it was decided? I'll wait while everyone rushes to their Google.

It was the case where the Supreme Court gave itself the authority to determine whether or not a law was constitutional.

Not an answer.

 

[Conservative65]

[No, that is false. When the Constitution was ratified the existence of judicial review in the Constitution was accepted by both those who opposed it and those who supported it.

uraliar. The idea of judgings repealing laws and writing new ones was invented in marbury v madison. Before that, the idea had never even occurred to anyong. If anyone did think it, they dismissed it immediately. Repealing laws and writing laws is what legislators do.

think, you hatefilled miserable wretch.

The idea that courts could nullify statutes originated in England with Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion in Dr. Bonham’s Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a. Call me a liar all you want, but you merely reveal your own ignorance.

Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. I already provided a detailed explanation of why, and your failure to comprehend it is on you.

Marbury is where the Supreme Court gaves itself authority to do something that isn't in the Constitution. Your failure to comprehend that is on you.

How many people in here even know what Marbury v Madison was about, or how it was decided? I'll wait while everyone rushes to their Google.

It was the case where the Supreme Court gave itself the authority to determine whether or not a law was constitutional.

Not an answer.

Do you really want all the details? I can give them to you since that was the topic of my graduate school thesis.

 

[regent]

So is a law Constitutional unless the Court declares it unconstitutional? Are we obeying laws that would be found unconstitutional if they went before the Court?

 

[emilynghiem]

uraliar. The idea of judgings repealing laws and writing new ones was invented in marbury v madison. Before that, the idea had never even occurred to anyong. If anyone did think it, they dismissed it immediately. Repealing laws and writing laws is what legislators do.

think, you hatefilled miserable wretch.

The idea that courts could nullify statutes originated in England with Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion in Dr. Bonham’s Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a. Call me a liar all you want, but you merely reveal your own ignorance.

Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. I already provided a detailed explanation of why, and your failure to comprehend it is on you.

Marbury is where the Supreme Court gaves itself authority to do something that isn't in the Constitution. Your failure to comprehend that is on you.

How many people in here even know what Marbury v Madison was about, or how it was decided? I'll wait while everyone rushes to their Google.

It was the case where the Supreme Court gave itself the authority to determine whether or not a law was constitutional.

Not an answer.

Do you really want all the details? I can give them to you since that was the topic of my graduate school thesis.

Great go ahead and post a link or give a summary.
I think we need to have this discussion.

All people should have equal authority to decide what is constitutional,
and then we should use the proper venues for establishing that as law by AGREEMENT.

I do not agree with this dangerous trend of giving "final power" to the Court.
Not enough check, and the conflicts should be resolved BEFORE it gets to that point.
(note becuase of the delays caused by the legal procedures, and also flipping back and forth from Courts to kick back to legislatures, in the meantime, justice is denied to whichever side of the conflict is not served or represented while the law flips this way or that way. some cases cannot afford to drag out, or it's the same as justice denied. So mediation and consensus at the start would prevent one or both sides from suffering losses or imposition in the meantime)

It's like the difference between going through a process using an "essay format" or Q&A
versus trying to boil things down to a "true/false" yes/no question.

All issues needs to be hashed out in advance.
Not lump them together into two sides and let the court rubber stamp this or that.

Most of these conflicts I see now are already set up to fail.
So either way the court rules, someone loses because the issues/questions/laws weren't written out right to begin with.

So if you feed badly Worded questions into a true/false computer you still don't get the answers to the REAL problems.

 

[Cecilie1200]

uraliar. The idea of judgings repealing laws and writing new ones was invented in marbury v madison. Before that, the idea had never even occurred to anyong. If anyone did think it, they dismissed it immediately. Repealing laws and writing laws is what legislators do.

think, you hatefilled miserable wretch.

The idea that courts could nullify statutes originated in England with Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion in Dr. Bonham’s Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a. Call me a liar all you want, but you merely reveal your own ignorance.

Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. I already provided a detailed explanation of why, and your failure to comprehend it is on you.

Marbury is where the Supreme Court gaves itself authority to do something that isn't in the Constitution. Your failure to comprehend that is on you.

How many people in here even know what Marbury v Madison was about, or how it was decided? I'll wait while everyone rushes to their Google.

It was the case where the Supreme Court gave itself the authority to determine whether or not a law was constitutional.

Not an answer.

Do you really want all the details? I can give them to you since that was the topic of my graduate school thesis.

Yes, I actually do want to know if people know what the case involved, what the decision was, and how it produced this extra-Constitutional usurpation of power by the judiciary. That is most likely why I asked the question.

 

[Conservative65]

The idea that courts could nullify statutes originated in England with Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion in Dr. Bonham’s Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a. Call me a liar all you want, but you merely reveal your own ignorance.

Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. I already provided a detailed explanation of why, and your failure to comprehend it is on you.

Marbury is where the Supreme Court gaves itself authority to do something that isn't in the Constitution. Your failure to comprehend that is on you.

How many people in here even know what Marbury v Madison was about, or how it was decided? I'll wait while everyone rushes to their Google.

It was the case where the Supreme Court gave itself the authority to determine whether or not a law was constitutional.

Not an answer.

Do you really want all the details? I can give them to you since that was the topic of my graduate school thesis.

Yes, I actually do want to know if people know what the case involved, what the decision was, and how it produced this extra-Constitutional usurpation of power by the judiciary. That is most likely why I asked the question.

That's what I said it did. What John Marshall stated in the opinion produced an "extra-Constitutional usurpation of power by the judiciary". By declaring a law passed by Congress and signed by the President as being in violation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court gaves itself the ability to do something that the Constitution does not.

A provision of The Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction in cases involving the type of thing for which William Marbury was suing. However, Article III, Section 2, Clause two states cases such as this type must come to the Supreme Court through appellate jurisdiction. Marbury's position wasn't one of those for which the Constitution says the Supreme Court hears originally. John Marshall was a very smart man. He knew that by declaring a law, or portion of it as going against the Constitution, he would establish the Court as the ultimate authority to decide what the Constitution meant and what it didn't mean.

Would you like any more details. I have about 30 more pages.